الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 74 |  |  |
| | | from | 74 | | |
Abstract
This examination was intended to think about between lithium disilicate glass earthenware, misty zirconia and high clear solid zirconia as respect weight reduction because of a destructive medium just as the impact of consumption on their flexural strength, shading solidness and miniature construction. 24 examples were built and separated into 3 gatherings as per earthenware materials utilized (8 examples f) bunch, bunch gathering. Then, at that point, each gathering was partitioned (3 examples each) as per grouping of tests performed.Then, at that point, 4 examples from every subgroup were exposed to acidic corrosive as a destructive specialist. Those examples, after that exposed to consumption test, then, at that point, to decide weight reduction of each example.Then, at that point, 3 examples from them were tried for shading soundness first then, at that point, were exposed to bi pivotal flexural strength test and the last example were tried by x beam diffraction test. Then, at that point, consequences of the consumed tests were contrasted by non eroded examples oppressed with similar tests to see the impact of destructive specialists on the shading soundness, flexural strength and the nuclear game plan of the tried fired examples. All information were gathered, determined, classified and measurable dissected. post hoc test was utilized trailed by Twoway utilized to think about the mean contrasts after some time. The importance level was set at P ≤ 0.05.Measurable investigation was performed with IBM® SPSS® Statistics Version 20 for Windows. In the erosion test: There was a genuinely critical contrast between (EMax), (solid zirconia) and (misty Zirconia) where (p=0.001). In the biaxial flexural strength: There was no genuinely critical contrast when looked at prior and then afterward erosion inside a similar gathering concerning E max bunch (p=0.752), solid zirconia (p=0.400) and misty zirconia (p=0.210).Be that as it may, when analyzed between various gatherings prior and then afterward erosion there was a genuinely critical distinction between (EMax), (MONIOLITHIC ZR) and (Opaque Zirconia) where (p=0.001) before consumption and (p=0.007) after consumption. In the shading soundness: There was a huge contrast in all shading boundaries that were estimated between various gatherings and inside similar gatherings prior and then afterward erosion (Pandlt;.001)but clinically no huge shading change in examples prior and then afterward maturing which is considered as clinically satisfactory.However, there was a really huge difference when analyzing before and after consumption within similar collections for the E max cluster (P = 0.008) and the cloudy zircon cluster (P = 0.007), but it didn’t There was no measurable contrast when observed in the solid zircon cluster first and then after erosion as (P = 0.373).
In X ray diffraction:
There was indeed a huge contrast in the change (tm step) between the previous and next erosion test in fully proven examples (Pandlt; .001).